Linda – you state that you find the idea of abortions being done for gender selection abhorrent, but clearly you have no problems with abortions being done because the child has Down Syndrome. So in your world it is quite okay to end the life of a child if they are different to most of us, but you have some concern if the child’s life is ended simply because the child is female.

But of course for you it doesn’t really matter because you are “a supporter of women’s rights to terminate pregnancies, on demand”. Presumably that means up until birth too because as you say, how could you ever possibly interfere with what other women do with their bodies?

You really can’t have it both ways though, either the child in the womb has no value – whether healthy, different, female or whatever – and if so then there is nothing further to say, or they do have value and so they should not be allowed to be killed for any reason (including conception in rape and incest).

Then you express concern about “coercion and power imbalances in these situations”. Obviously though you have no concern about the power imbalance between the defenceless child in the womb and the adults who would end their lives.

What incredibly confused mixed messages you are sending.

I feel for the plight of the author. She has swallowed whole the the doctrine that human rights adhere to every person and that those rights over-ride all other obvious ethical demands. She is now paying the price of this in her professional life in the quandary she now finds herself in.

But this doctrine of human rights is a recent invention and has replaced all other ethical considerations. It is bankrupt as regards what our identity as human beings consists. It is obvious that our humanity deplores infanticide and this is obvious in the authors unease at abortion for gender selection. But no, she has to transcend her feelings and the obvious promptings of conscience and bow down to the idol of the day: human rights.

This is not a necessary position. It is possible to adopt an ethical position without the acceding to the mythic existence of rights. There are older and more fundamental descriptions of the human.
Peter Sellick

Linda, a well written article on a difficult subject that you won't find much support for on a forum mainly populated by men.

I agree with you that if we 'allow' abortion on demand, to a certain extent, in this country, then it is not anyone's business but the doctor and parent(s) as to the reasons for the abortion.

Deciding on whether to continue with a Down's Syndrome baby pregnancy is a very personal decision. The fallout from bringing up such a child is much worse than any guilt or remorse a woman may feel for the abortion of the child.
Any woman who does decide to keep the baby in these circumstances I have nothing but admiration for.

Gender selection abortions are a difficult subject though because of the obvious problem of coercion of women to undergo an abortion they don't want..usually of a female baby.

The one-child policy problems in China is an example of what happens if women are forced to only have one child, against their will. The result is a society top-heavy with males...leading to all sorts of social problems.

In my mind, no one has the right to force a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy, OR to have an abortion she does not want.

It is a woman's right to decide about what does or does not happen to her body, and it is not up to any man or culture, or religion to decide that for women.

Susan,
I find it incredible that you state:"it is a woman's right to decide about what does or does not happen to her body, and it is not up to any man or culture, or religion to decide that for women." If we are talking about rights, which is an obvious mistake, then what about the rights of the father not to have his child murdered? What about the "rights" of the grandparents, siblings, uncles and aunties etc not to have a member of the family murdered?

Rights are invented things and are used in this case to isolate the individual from his/her community. It is of the essence of being human that we exist only in communion. No man is an island unto himself.

Peter Sellick

I think my child's life has more value than Linda's - or any eugenicist doctor who dares to agree with her perverse and jaundiced viewpoint. My son might have Down's Syndrome, but at least he always lives his life by the values of love and kindness.

Sells, who said anything against the rights of the father?
I would suggest that in many cases it is the father who is urging the abortion in the first place.

No matter how much you may wish it was different, it IS the woman who is carrying the baby, using her body, and suffering the resulting physical and emotional problems.
The father is important, but it is her body, not his.

Is it always the bad woman's fault with 'sins' like sex before marriage, single motherhood or abortion?

Single mothers don't make the babies by themselves.
Maybe it's the daddies who don't want to play happy families after they have had their fun making babies?

Excalibur, no one is saying anything against your obviously much loved son, or anyone else like him.

However, not everyone is willing or able to take on a lifetime of care for these gentle people who inevitably suffer from various physical and mental illnesses.

There are many people with Downs Syndrome in care facilities that show the obvious difficulties their families had with dealing with their disabilities.
You would know that there are varying levels of how each Downs Syndrome child is affected.

I don't think we can judge these parents unless we walk in their shoes...

Susan,
I think that the priority you assert of the woman because it is "her" body does not justify the murder of a child. In marriage, which is what we are talking about here, we become one flesh. That means that we own each other's body as we own the issue of that body. I use "own" here in a specific sense, perhaps "love" would be better.

The author shows her discriminatory views towards the Down syndrome community. She is rightly concerned about reducing harm caused by invasive tests but reveals an assumption that the lives of those without Down syndrome are worth saving, whilst harming those with Down syndrome through selective abortion presents no concern. Thus, presenting her own bias for discrimination, ableism and eugenics against the Down syndrome community. The ethical way to reduce harm, is to reduce harm to all without discrimination.

Having revealed her lowly view of people with Down syndrome she then proceeds to justify discrimination against girls and her own sex.

One is left feeling sorry for a "health" practitioner who supports discrimination against those with genetic difference and females, which says a lot about herself and nothing about those she judges as being of less worth.

Suseonline, you show a particularly discriminatory view of people with Down syndrome, such as my daughter. You have no right to make judgements about the worth of my child.

There is no "fallout" from having a child with Down syndrome and they are not "difficulties for their families". The main difficulty they experience is hurtful discriminatory attitudes such as your own and the author of the article.

Mike Sullivan do not put words in my mouth.
I did not show any discrimination towards Downs Syndrome affected people at all.

I am a nurse and have worked with these people and their families for over 30 years , and you know very well what I mean about 'fallout' .

I am talking about the probable heart, continence and other health problems that affect these people, causing no end of worry for the families, not to mention the significant learning and development disabilities.

Then there are the family problems of marriage breakdowns and siblings feeling neglected that often arise, to name just 2 problems.

Not everyone is willing or able to take all that on for the rest of their lives, knowing they will also have the worry of who will care for these people once the parents can't do it any more.

If you are happy, then that is wonderful for you, but it should be a choice for others to make rather than be forced into carrying a baby they don't want.

Typical response from a medical proffessional when it comes to DS testing. Makes me sick... Thank goodness some Drs have had their own children with DS...
Suseonline, let me start by saying its people first thankyou. Our kids have down syndrome, they are not down syndrome people, i wouldnt call you a nurse people. I would call you alady who is a nurse wouldnt I?
I would love you to know that my family and friends adore my second son who has DS and so many family and friends have enjoyed being educated on DS in this era and thank me daily for opening up the DS world to them... I do find it offensive when someone thinks that our kids are a burden on us forever or ruin our lives. I can tell you if I had of aborted my son I would be in a right mental state right now instead of being the proud mother of two young men. My father has dementia, soon enough he wont even remember who i am, should he be terminated too? Everyone is always only one step away from a car accident that can change their life or their childs life be it a brain injury or physical but of course no one thinks of that do they? Hmmmm

Good luck to you too mum2twoboys, but I say again, not everyone who has 'DS' children feel like you do. (Yes, DS sounds much better than people with Downs Syndrome).

Of course they love their children, but you can't tell me that not every one of them doesn't question what if?

Maybe other people with DS children wouldn't feel comfortable discussing their sadness and upset with you, at what has happened to their child and their family...and yes, that they often wish things were very different.

But many, in fact most, have voiced these thoughts to me.

Again I say, you can't speak for all people with DS relatives, nor for all people who have to make this difficult choice with abortion.
I certainly don't judge them and do support them with either decision.

Susanonline, there is no right to choose to discriminate against another because of their ability. Your statements reflect your own bias. People with Down syndrome have dignity by being human, just as you and I do. You may be conformable with judging and labelling fellow humans as being of less worth than yourself. The rest of us promote equal rights for all.

You don't promote rights for all, Mike Sullivan, just for yourself.
If you did, you would promote women's rights to choose what happens to their own bodies, and not advocate forcing women to go through with pregnancies they don't want.
So don't judge me.
Have a look at yourself first.

What a refuge of desperation you have to resort to Susieonline to try and claim that there is only one body involved in an abortion. It is irrefutable that two or more distinctly different human beings - different DNA and half the time different sex - are present during every pregnancy. Certainly the lives in the womb are completely dependent on the mother but they are not thereby part of the mother. That is just poor logic and poorer biology.

There ARE two bodies when you are pregnant. The mothers and the baby. It is a cop for people to say its a fetus.. I have a friend who had an abortion yrs ago because hubby didnt want anymore kids and it ended their marriage as she did not want to do it.
My son, Mikes child and anyone else with DS, CP CF or any other dissability or as I like to say are differently abled deserve life. I know over 700 families just in Australia and none of them regret their child or adult with DS. I have met many parents online now from overseas and they too do not regret their child with DS. My son does not regret his brother. Im just sad my mums no longer here to enjoy him..
My two boys are my life. I love them both to bits, both equally as thats how it should be. My son with DS is not valued less than his brother. They are loved the same, my son with DS is no trouble, if anything my son without DS is the one giving me grey hairs... Lol...

Dear, dear, here we have the usual dead end arguments based on individual human rights. It is time we saw that this will not do, that we need other resources other than the mere assertion of rights to make some way with these issues. If we do no all we get is a childish discussion about whose rights trump whose rights and that can go on forever.

What is the status of the foetus? It is not a cancer derived from the body of the women, it is not a part of the woman. It is tissue that can only be another human being.

You guys all need to drag yourselves out of the '50s and realise that abortion is legal in our country for a reason......no one has the right to FORCE a woman to go through with a pregnancy or to have an abortion. It is her body.

The solution is simple really.
Anyone who doesn't want an abortion doesn't have to have one.

But you need to butt out of anyone else's decision...especially where there is a probable disability with the baby.
it is no one else's decision but the parents and their doctor.

It's 2013 now. We recognise that we no longer discriminate against those with disabilities. Women who undergo screening have already decided that they want to be pregnant, otherwise they wouldn't go to a health practitioner for pregnancy care, they would be seeking an abortion. If that wanted pregnancy is turned into selecting the type of child, then it's discrimination and eugenics.

Susanonline, you need to stop being so discriminate against children and babies with down syndrome. Its very sad the way you feel about our kids. It is obvious you think our kids are less worthy of anything compared to you. Shame on you! Thats all I have to say.

Mum2boys you can twist what I say all you like.
That's all I have to say.

I don't like the idea of gender based abortion either, but if abortion is 'discrimination', it is (equally) the case in all terminations, even where the foetus develops in the fallopian tube.

However the author seems more concerned to prove that women have a higher morality than men. Informed by her feminism, she feels obliged to excuse and defend women for girl abortions, blaming men for putting pressure on them. I don't believe that at all, women and men migrants are equally imbued with their introduced cultural traditions. That can be seen in the case of FGM, for instance, where women take the lead.

I also do not believe that traditions that are offensive to us and are opposite to our culture and laws will die out in a generation through public education, as hoped by the author. Maybe some will and perhaps too in other cases the traditions could become more hard edged. Maintenance of negative cultural traditions in the host country depends on many factors, such as the strength of the tradition, possible reinforcement through migrants from the same regions being located together, tolerance by authorities (police turning a blind eye) and so on.

The article is useful because it surfaces the untidiness of moral decisions. It is self-indulgence though because the doctor realises that abortion must be the choice of the woman concerned and it is inappropriate to second-guess or judge her decision. There can be no 'good' or 'bad' abortions if the policy is to work and be practical. A termination is a termination. If the woman's partner, women relatives or others seek to influence her then so be it, she is an adult and must take responsibility for her choices.

While on that, it could be argued that feminists continue to patronise and victimise women by assuming that they cannot make their own informed decisions and be accountable for them. Just because some women might not have a university Degree, or might not assert themselves as loudly and obviously as western women habitually do, does not imply that they are stupid, easily influenced and incapable.